The Experts below are selected from a list of 78 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Häfner Lutz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Francesco Benvenuti, The Bolsheviks and the Red Army, 1918-1922. Translated from the Italian by Christopher Woodall, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988; Mark von Hagen, Soldiers in the Proletarian Dictatorship. The Red Army and the Soviet Socialist State, 1917-1930, Ithaca, NY, London: Cornell UP, 1990 (Studies of the Harriman Institute, Columbia University)
'Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH', 1992Co-Authors: Häfner LutzAbstract:Häfner L. Francesco Benvenuti, The Bolsheviks and the Red Army, 1918-1922. Translated from the Italian by Christopher Woodall, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988; Mark von Hagen, Soldiers in the Proletarian Dictatorship. The Red Army and the Soviet Socialist State, 1917-1930, Ithaca, NY, London: Cornell UP, 1990 (Studies of the Harriman Institute, Columbia University). Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. 1992;40(1):131-133
Siwek Mateusz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Leninist concept of Proletarian Dictatorship state
2024Co-Authors: Siwek MateuszAbstract:Paper discusses the problematic issues concerning the Dictatorship of the proletariat in Vladimir Lenin’s socio-political thought. Generally speaking, this paper includes the analysis of the Dictatorship of the proletariat in a historical perspective on the background of polemical debate and this paper covers issues that are most controversial and most disputed in the marxist doctrine. In particular, I discussed marxist concept of Dictatorship of the proletariat, democratic Dictatorship of proletariat and peasants, development Proletarian Dictatorship to the October Revolution and after the October Revolution, controversy over the role and character of the party of proletariat, leninist communist party new concept type, internal party organization, leading role of the communist party, structure of the labor movement, problem of party composition of the soviet government, soviet democracy, Lenin’s dispute with Kautsky, criticism of the conception of the “leftist communism”, problem of bureaucracy, place of the trade unions within the political system, rule of law, importance of violence and terror, participation of masses in governing and importance of Council of Workers, Peasants and Soldiers, essence of state and vision of socialist state, alliance proletariat with the peasantry, compromise issue, controversy over the Proletarian Dictatorship and Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, importance of working class and problem of revolutionary class consciousness.Praca omawia problematyczne zagadnienia dotyczące dyktatury proletariatu w społeczno-politycznej myśli Włodzimierza Lenina. Ogólnie mówiąc, praca zawiera omówienie dyktatury proletariatu z perspektywy historycznej na tle polemicznych dyskusji i dotyczy zagadnień najbardziej kontrowersyjnych i najbardziej spornych w doktrynie marksistowskiej. W szczególności omówiłem marksistowską koncepcję dyktatury proletariatu, demokratyczną dyktaturę proletariatu i chłopstwa, rozwój koncepcji dyktatury proletariatu do Rewolucji Październikowej oraz po Rewolucji Październikowej, spór o rolę i charakter partii proletariatu, leninowską koncepcję partii komunistycznej nowego typu, organizację wewnętrzną partii, kierowniczą rolę partii komunistycznej, strukturę organizacyjną ruchu robotniczego, problem składu partyjnego rządu radzieckiego, demokrację radziecką, polemikę Lenina z Kautsky’m, krytykę koncepcji „lewicowego komunizmu”, problem biurokracji, miejsce związków zawodowych w systemie politycznym, praworządność, znaczenie przemocy i terroru, udział mas w rządzeniu i znaczenie Rad Delegatów Robotniczych, Chłopskich i Żołnierskich, istotę państwa i wizję państwa socjalistycznego, sojusz proletariatu z chłopstwem, zagadnienie kompromisów, spór o dyktaturę proletariatu i dyktaturę burżuazji, znaczenie proletariatu i problem świadomości klasowej proletariatu
Yao Xiaoling - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mao´s China : nation-state, party-state, empire? : a study of Mao´s nation-building
1996Co-Authors: Yao XiaolingAbstract:MAO'S CHINA: NATION-STATE, PARTY-STATE, EMPIRE? A Study of Mao's Nation-Building The process of Mao's state/nation-building including the political control, national unification, and redistribution of wealth -- a unity of land, army and people -- was, to some extent, similar to the process of state/nation-building in Western Europe during the last century. This raises a question of fundamental importance: Can Mao's China Be Describedas a Nation-State? To answer this question we need not only to understand how Mao's China was built, operated and developed from 1949 to 1976,we also need to work out a theoretical framework of Mao's China and a definition of the nation-state in a Chinese context. After 1949, Mao carried out the process of state-building. The state was under the control of the Communist Party. This characteristic does not belong to the modern nation-state as we know it from Western Europe. Maybe Mao's China also could be described as a party-state. However, from 1949 to 1976, China had one leader with extensive power totally dominating the Party, a situation that corresponds to Hegel's view when he described oriental despotism: "the Eastern nations knew only that one is free" (1956: 19). Mao Zedong was such a man who could be said to actually dominate the whole of China. All other Party members had to follow and did follow his words. In this sense, Mao's China may also be described as an empire. The question about Mao's China as a nation- state should accordingly be supplemented with the following question : Can Mao 's China Be Described as a Nation-State, or Party-State, orEmpire, orNone of the Above? In the thesis, I will, however, mainly deal with the first question, but none of them can be totally separated from the two others. Theor etical Pers pectives In the theoretical chapter, I proceed by looking into the two major political traditions in China and Europe, focusing on to what extent Mao inherited the Chinese Legalism and Confucianism, and how Mao combined these two with Marxism and Leninism, namely Lenin's Proletarian Dictatorship and Marx' communist society. It explores theoretical literature and explanations of empire, party-state and nation-state and its associated central concepts such as state, nation and nationalism. Rokkan's theory of state/nation building will be mainly used to analyse the process of Mao's state/nation-building. War, however, both the Anti-Japanese War and the Civil War played a crucial role in Mao's state/nation-building. Therefore, I will bring the theory of war provided by Carl won Clausewitz, Michael Howard and Charles Tilly into my discussion. structure of the Thesis This thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter One (Introduction) is a brief presentation of the object of the study, the theoretical perspectives, the methodological approaches as well as the sources. Chapter Two starts with a discussion of the differences and similarities between the major Chinese and European political traditions, including a brief presentation of Marx's, Lenin's and Mao Zedong's political thoughts. This theoretical chapter continues with a discussion on empire, nation-state, nationalism and Rokkan's theory of state/nation building. Chapter Three presents a brief political history of China from the Opium War (1839-42) to the victory of Mao's revolution (1949). It will give a general picture of how the Chinese responded to the West; whythe Chinese intellectual elite accepted Marxism and Leninism as the national ideology; how Mao became a patriotic leader; and how the Communist Party became the vanguard of the revolution. Besides, I will discuss what kind of role the Anti-Japanese War and the Civil War played in Mao's state/nation building. In Chapter Four, I will focus the attention on Mao's state/nation-building process. This chapter consists of four parts divided by Rokkan's four phases: penetration, standardization, participation and redistribution. Here, I will use Rokkan's model and suggest that Mao's China could be described in the similar way as he described the European nation-state during the last century. In Chapter Five, which is the concluding chapter, I will argue that China only partly can be described as a nation-state. China may also be characterized as a party-state as well as an empire with Mao as an emperor. In other words, Mao's China cannot be described merely as a nation-state, or a party-state or an empire, but as the combination of the three. The challenging -- and daunting -- task is then to show how these three concepts can be employed to explain the Chinese political process in Mao's period, and to show how the inter-linkages between them can be identified and analyzed
Harris James - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Bolshevik Party Transformed: Stalin’s Rise to Power (1917–1927)
'Ural Federal University', 2017Co-Authors: Harris JamesAbstract:In 1917, the Bolsheviks promised the liberation of the working masses from exploitation. And yet, within twenty years, they had delivered a regime that was substantially more exploitative and repressive than that of the Tsarist regime they had overthrown. This article argues that more than a quarter of a century after the opening of the archives, we still misapprehend how it happened. Historians tend to see the process as programmatic, or planned and intentional: that the Bolsheviks were authoritarian by nature, or that Stalin hijacked the Revolution and satisfied his lust for power by building a personal Dictatorship. The articleargues that we have failed to grasp the extent to which the positive programme of liberation continued to motivate the Bolshevik leadership throughout the interwar period. But they had underestimated the obstacles to creating a consensual, participatory political order. Considerable progress was made overcoming basic illiteracy, but it was another matter altogether to establish a functioning administrative apparatus, to fight and win the civil war, and to rebuild a shatteredeconomy. The breakdown of liberal (“bourgeois”) democracies in Europe encouraged complacency about the superiority of the “transitional” Proletarian Dictatorship. The struggle for power after Lenin’s death turned local organisations against inner party democracy. It did not seem appropriate to revive it either in the midst of collectivisation and rapid industrialisation. The survival of the Revolution and catching up to the advanced capitalist countries took precedence. But if we treat extreme political violence and Dictatorship as ends in themselves, we will fail adequately to grasp the fate of the Revolution.В 1917 г. большевики обещали освобождение трудящихся масс от эксплуатации. Но в течение 20 лет они установили режим гораздо более эксплуататорский и репрессивный по своей сути, чем побежденный ими царизм. Автор утверждает, что спустя более четверти века после открытия архивов мы все еще остаемся в неведении по поводу того, почему так случилось. Историки склонны рассматривать этот исход как запрограммированный либо преднамеренно спланированный, поскольку большевики были авторитарны по своей природе, или же Сталин «оседлал» революцию и установил личную диктатуру, удовлетворяя жажду власти. До сих пор нет ясности в понимании того, в какой степени положительная программа освобождения народа продолжала мотивировать большевистское руководство в межвоенный период. Большевики недооценили препятствия на пути создания общественного порядка, основанного на согласованном политическом участии. Существенный прогресс был достигнут на пути ликвидации неграмотности, но значительно труднее было создать функционирующий государственный аппарат, бороться и выиграть Гражданскую войну, а также восстановить разрушенную экономику. Падение либеральных («буржуазных») демократий в Европе укрепляло ощущение превосходства «переходной» пролетарской диктатуры. Борьба за власть после смерти Ленина направила местные партийные организации на борьбу с внутрипартийной демократией. Возрождать ее в условиях коллективизации и ускоренной индустриализации казалось неуместным. Гораздо более важным представлялось выживание революции и стремление догнать передовые капиталистические страны. Автор отмечает, что если относиться к проявлениям политического насилия и диктатуре как к конечной цели советской власти, невозможно должным образом понять судьбу революции
Harris J. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Bolshevik Party Transformed: Stalin’s Rise to Power (1917–1927)
'Ural Federal University', 2017Co-Authors: Harris J.Abstract:The article was submitted on 17.01.2017.In 1917, the Bolsheviks promised the liberation of the working masses from exploitation. And yet, within twenty years, they had delivered a regime that was substantially more exploitative and repressive than that of the Tsarist regime they had overthrown. This article argues that more than a quarter of a century after the opening of the archives, we still misapprehend how it happened. Historians tend to see the process as programmatic, or planned and intentional: that the Bolsheviks were authoritarian by nature, or that Stalin hijacked the Revolution and satisfied his lust for power by building a personal Dictatorship. The article argues that we have failed to grasp the extent to which the positive programme of liberation continued to motivate the Bolshevik leadership throughout the interwar period. But they had underestimated the obstacles to creating a consensual, participatory political order. Considerable progress was made overcoming basic illiteracy, but it was another matter altogether to establish a functioning administrative apparatus, to fight and win the civil war, and to rebuild a shattered economy. The breakdown of liberal (“bourgeois”) democracies in Europe encouraged complacency about the superiority of the “transitional” Proletarian Dictatorship. The struggle for power after Lenin’s death turned local organisations against inner party democracy. It did not seem appropriate to revive it either in the midst of collectivisation and rapid industrialisation. The survival of the Revolution and catching up to the advanced capitalist countries took precedence. But if we treat extreme political violence and Dictatorship as ends in themselves, we will fail adequately to grasp the fate of the Revolution.В 1917 г. большевики обещали освобождение трудящихся масс от эксплуатации. Но в течение 20 лет они установили режим гораздо более эксплуататорский и репрессивный по своей сути, чем побежденный ими царизм. Автор утверждает, что спустя более четверти века после открытия архивов мы все еще остаемся в неведении по поводу того, почему так случилось. Историки склонны рассматривать этот исход как запрограммированный либо преднамеренно спланированный, поскольку большевики были авторитарны по своей природе, или же Сталин «оседлал» революцию и установил личную диктатуру, удовлетворяя жажду власти. До сих пор нет ясности в понимании того, в какой степени положительная программа освобождения народа продолжала мотивировать большевистское руководство в межвоенный период. Большевики недооценили препятствия на пути создания общественного порядка, основанного на согласованном политическом участии. Существенный прогресс был достигнут на пути ликвидации неграмотности, но значительно труднее было создать функционирующий государственный аппарат, бороться и выиграть Гражданскую войну, а также восстановить разрушенную экономику. Падение либеральных («буржуазных») демократий в Европе укрепляло ощущение превосходства «переходной» пролетарской диктатуры. Борьба за власть после смерти Ленина направила местные партийные организации на борьбу с внутрипартийной демократией. Возрождать ее в условиях коллективизации и ускоренной индустриализации казалось неуместным. Гораздо более важным представлялось выживание революции и стремление догнать передовые капиталистические страны. Автор отмечает, что если относиться к проявлениям политического насилия и диктатуре как к конечной цели советской власти, невозможно должным образом понять судьбу революции
